On 11/11/2011 09:06 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > The long option shouldn't be --kilobyte, since ls -k means > 1024 not 1000. So I suppose it should be --kibibyte. > > It's a little tricky, since -k means --block-size=1K > for df and du as well, and I assume this won't change, > since df -k and du -k conform to POSIX. (Surely there's > no need to add --kibibyte to du and df -- why should > we make df and du more confusing merely because > ls must be more confusing? :-). > > So does the following sound plausible? > > Add --kibibyte to 'ls', make it equivalent to -k, change > -k so that it conforms to POSIX, and have --block-size > override -k. But leave df and du alone
I'm reluctant to add a new option which no one will really use. But I concur, given the hits from: http://codesearch.google.com/#search/&q=ls\%20.*--block%20lang:^shell$&p=1&type=cs -k really isn't used in that context, and replacing --block with -k in the above query returns no hits. cheers, Pádraig.
